The 77th session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) just concluded at the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It originally intended to adopt a new pandemic treaty and amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) that would tie country responses to the decisions of the WHO’s Director-General. In the end, it kicked one can down the road for a year, and partly filled another. The mandate of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was extended to continue negotiation on the wording of the new treaty (‘Pandemic Agreement’), and the Assembly adopted a limited package of binding and non-binding amendments to the IHR. This outcome, reached during the very last hours, is disappointing from many viewpoints, yet was not unexpected.
Both texts were pushed in unusual haste by those who advised, supported and mandated catastrophic public health responses to COVID-19. Ignoring Covid’s probable lab-based origins, the official narrative backing the measures remains that “the world is unprepared for the next pandemic”. Spending over $30 billion per year on surveillance and other measures aimed solely at natural outbreaks will somehow fix this.
The 77th WHA has sent a clear warning to the world that the global pandemic agenda is moving forward. WHO is in the driving seat, with States Parties’ consent to ignore procedural requirements to get the job done. The deplorable absence of serious questions at the WHA on i) the economic costs versus benefits of this agenda, ii) the potential impact of new amendments on human rights and iii) the scientific foundations of the systematic surveillance approach, signals that the drivers are political rather than evidence-based.
Those who seek to ensure that future pandemic preparation and response takes account of the recent lessons of the COVID-19 response, and adheres to the basic principles and ethics that underlie public health, have seen another predictable set-back. But overcoming vested interests with truth is an age-old battle, and takes time and courage.
Outcomes of the drafting process
The INB was unable to come to sufficient consensus on a viable text to present to the WHA, despite continuing two months beyond its original deadline of March 2024. Hence, its mandate was extended for another year, with a rotation of the bureau’s members. A special WHA session may be convened for adoption if consensus will be reached sooner. Since much of the concern over the proportionality and appropriateness of the proposed Pandemic Agreement came from state delegations to the INB, the composition of its new bureau will be crucial to its outcome.
The process for presenting the IHR amendments was remarkable, given that they are intended to be legally-binding on member states. Despite the WGIHR failing to produce a text fit for a vote until hours before the consensus text was presented to the WHA, rather than four months prior as legally required by Article 55 (2) of the IHR, it was still tabled for approval.
The negotiations even continued in parallel with the WHA session, until a final consensus text was reached. France, Indonesia, Kenya, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. authored the resolution adopting the amendments, plus Canada as a co-sponsor. On the public webcast (Plenary, 1 June 2024, 20:55-22:50), the WHA Chair chose not to call for a formal vote by show of hands after the text was read aloud. A total of 45 speakers, representing countries and regional groups and totaling 109 States Parties, expressed their commitment to this multilateral approach. Ethiopia spoke on behalf of 48 African countries, Mexico for 16 American countries, and the European Union for its 27 Members. This therefore represents a clear majority of the 196 States Parties to the IHR. Much was said on the importance of learning from the COVID-19 pandemic by adopting the amendments and continuing the INB’s work, while ignoring the failure of scientifically unfounded Covid measures and their devastating consequences on economies, societal cohesion and non-Covid health burdens.
The WHO immediately called this outcome “historic” and a key step for countries to “build on lessons learned from several global health emergencies”. Upcoming official speeches from the WHO’s sister organisations in the United Nations system as well as from governments may well extoll it with similar rhetoric. It was nevertheless extremely disappointing for the public and numerous grassroots organisations who have manifested their opposition since the beginning of the process. While the WHA was deliberating, a rally and march of activists against the global pandemic agenda happened in front of the UN Office in Geneva.
It is rather unfortunate that only a very small number of countries (Argentina, Islamic Republic of Iran, Netherlands, Slovakia, Russia and U.K.) took the floor to affirm their sovereign right to examine each of the amendments at home in a rational manner, then accept or reject or make reservations as appropriate. These amendments ultimately impact health, economies and human rights, and treaty approval often is the Parliament’s prerogative. The legal requirement of the IHR is to ensure such reflection, and in ignoring this member states diminished their own citizenry.
Observations of the amendment process
Unprecedented mobilisation of the public has occurred locally and globally by groups and individuals concerned with the WHO’s pandemic preparedness agenda. This probably modified the direction of the IHR race car, through influence on politicians and maybe on delegates during the negotiations. For example, the proposal on making all WHO’s recommendations mandatory for countries was on the table until it was dropped in March 2024. Growing concerns over proportionality and risks have also struck a chord with those in the process, many of whom, in working for a good outcome, find themselves struggling with opaque or misrepresented claims by institutions backing the agenda.
WHO’s response to much of this has been to denigrate the public, applying terms such as ‘anti-vaxxer’ to people promoting orthodox public health process. This has undoubtedly undermined public trust. Politicians brave or concerned enough to speak out have tended to belong to opposition parties, or been relegated to them by those wielding power. However, the issues at stake – international rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially the right to bodily autonomy and the necessity of informed consent – should not be political. With few exceptions, leaders in power have relentlessly affirmed their support for the WHO projects. The mainstream media, in turn, have been surprisingly quiet and prefer not to question the official narrative. Thus, despite the potential impact of the agenda, there may be little hope that a large number of countries will choose to exercise their right to reservation and rejection in the permissible 10 months (according to amendments to Articles 59 and 61 IHR, made in 2022 and just entered into force on May 31st 2024).
Overall, the process has seriously altered public perceptions and trust in the United Nations system in general, and in the WHO in particular. Supranational bodies, typically located in safe and rich cities, detached from people’s daily lives and conditions and increasingly allying themselves with the rich, discuss and make decisions on all sorts of questions that many of us barely hear about. As demonstrated in this case, they can be as lawless as they wish with little or no consequence. They are constantly seeking to make themselves relevant by producing more and more of what may be termed ‘soft laws’ – declarations, agendas, policy guidelines and strategies – which in turn may pave the way for mandatory rules to come. This is not what democracy is about, but what previous pro-democracy movements stood against.
Conclusion
Good policy takes time and requires honest and open discussion. In vilifying opposing views and misrepresenting risk, the WHO is not serving member states well as the secretariat and technical input to the WHA. This is reflected in the 77th WHA outcomes. If the WHO is to serve a useful and positive role in global health, populations must demand better of their governments, who in turn must require a return to evidence-based and proportionate public health policy.
In its concentration on pandemics above other priorities, the WHO appears to have forgotten that it was set up to serve the people, especially the poor and vulnerable. By recklessly pushing its agenda forward at the expense of other health issues, it has forgotten the most fundamental principle proclaimed in its 1946 Constitution: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organisation partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Come what may the WHO was determined to get its own way. This charade has nothing to do with looking after health. The reality, let’s be blunt is to legalise genocide.
Will this mean that Billy’s new brew is going to be released? Most definitely because running alongside population reduction is the next set of mRNA injections. The money makers. I still expect another Scamdemic starting winter 2024 although if they can’t stop The Donald it could be earlier.
In our favour I believe that as the C1984 excess deaths stories become more visible and as the climate BS wakes more people up more of them will make the correct connections and start to kick back.
‘It’s war Jim, but not as we know it.’
Surprised but pleased to see The UK is taking the info back to parliament to have a better look at it , however these WHO clowns
are not going to let it go are they ! Ter-orist Ted is just another useful idiot as is Biden , Khant , Trudeau , Macron, Ballsak etc , the world is surely sick of his unelected mush preaching bollocks day after F ing day 
I have no faith whatsoever in our politicians. We will still be stitched up.
Agreed & although our shower are looking at it like you I’m sceptical that it will be thrown out !!
I was thinking of the Archbishop too who tried to get Calvin Robinson cancelled who had only just become a member of the clergy. My farther was one!
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals”
C.S. Lewis
Probably the most succinct summing up of mankind’s left / right thinking , it is absolutely brilliant !!
It just proves that the Rona scamdemic was a pilot project. Hard on that medical Nazism we have the globalist powers trying to cement the totalitarian protocols, of fake emergency-lockdowns-diapers-stabs into ‘law’. Not a cockup. Not a vaxxcidence.
National bureaucracies following orders from a global bureaucracy all of them at the behest and for the benefit of a corporate oligarchy.
That’s the world order we now live in.
I’m better prepared than I was first time around for the next pandemic of evil lies, and I think a lot of other people are too
Until cash is withdrawn & the electric is rationed
Don’t worry about stuff like this. Not because the future is going to be a lot better but because the cascading events that are inevitable now will make concerns about these prats look trivial. I am glad though that in the end-times all of this evil is being exposed. Even the deeper lesson or the nature of the demonic energy that is the progenitor of all of this is being intuited which is a nexessary step for the evoluton of the divine anthropos. Like Dylan said, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The world can manage perfectly well without the UN, the EU, or the World Health Organization. All of them need to be abolished.
They definitely do
Honestly in mid August we will be in a very different situation. I wonder how many people will be talking about a winnable war at that point. On every level we cannot win that war. There is no point in me saying it because it will have to be learned from circumstance.
The U.K. has deferred the decision for the next / incoming set of reprobates AKA the government to make.
Let’s be honest, we know they’ll accept whatever amendments are put forward to achieve the aim of total subjugation of the people.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-statement-at-77th-world-health-assembly-on-ihr-amendments
Exactly.
Fishy has probably told the Davos mob –
‘look, I’m taking one for the team by destroying the Conservative Party but I’m not being blamed for giving away UK sovereignty. Give that job to Kneel.’
I think we can expect another hyped-up “health emergency” this winter. Currently Bird Flu looks to be the Tyrants most likely choice.
Do your best to ignore them.
Unfortunately the recommendations in the conclusion of this article will never happen.
The UN was effectively set up to exercise authority over member states. It will always be used by globalists to attack the concept of national sovereignty.
As long as people talk about “international law” as a valid concept, they are accepting the globalist view of a supra-national authority able to make such “law”.
You cannot have true law without sovereignty, and sovereignty should belong with nation states, not with a bunch of unaccountable, undemocratic bureaucrats waffling in the United Nations.